Talk:Om

What about YouTube?

I would like to insert two links:

• AUM Spirituality: Significance of AUM - Ohm, Om Talk by Dr. Acharya Yogeesh
• AUM Mantra

Is it possible here?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now I've inserted the speaker, Dr. Acharya Yogeesh. No wikilink there.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Components

File:Om-n.svg may be used for describing the concepts associated to the character's graphical components. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...but of course such associations would need to be based on a quotable reference. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources Needed

There seems to be some confusion in this article about the Sikh concept of onkar and aum. As is my understanding, the word onkar simply means "creator of aum" (-kar being etymologically related to "karta", which appears three words later in the Mool Mantar). This article, however, seems to equate onkar with aum and (apparently) omkara. There especially seems to be a lot of unsourced claims (such as Ek onkar meaning "The Aum is One"). I would be very interested in seeing some sources for these, otherwise they should be deleted. Krea (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is confusion. The translation "The Aum is One" admittedly could do with attribution. It is one possible choice of rendering a nominal sentence. Obviously the literal word-by-word rendition is "one om syllable", but then English needs the copula and the article, so that "one om syllable" isn't a well-formed English sentence.

Of course kar is "etymologically related" to the root kar "make", but kāra is the technical term for "syllable". The fact that "ek omkar" (or "ek onkar", "ik onkar" etc.) is the vernacular pronunciation of Sanskrit ekomkāra is one of those facts almost too trivial to find a decent reference for, but perhaps we can find something. here I find a 1997 reference saying omkara, literally meaning the syllable om' but also used as a name of the divine 'Ek-onkar' . here is another reference stating explicitly "Oankar corresponds to the Sanskrit term OM". Here is a 2000 reference translating "Ek-Omkar" as "single-Om- syllable". Here is The Sikh review referring to "the symbolic representation of God as the mystic syllable, or sound OM".

Basically, this is just taken for granted by everyone and I seriously think that is isn't doubted by anyone, either within or outside of Sikhism. Most authors probably just find it too obvious to mention explicitly. If you find any reference contesting this, I would be interested in seeing it. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"If you find any reference contesting this..." Ah, but that's the very point, isn't it? There really aren't any good sources either way. As I'm sure you know, the Sikh tradition on the interpretation on Gurbani is strictly kept within the religious circles (I've attended a few teaching sessions held at a few Universities, but most teaching is done within Gurdwaras). In fact, I would be very cautious with occidental interpretation, since the few that I've seen trace their facts back to Ernest Trumpp's translation of the SGGS. Of course, my evaluation on western accuracy is just speculation, but nonetheless I still contest and require stronger sources.

More specifically, I don't believe that "the fact that 'ek omkar'...is the vernacular pronunciation of Sanskrit ekomkāra is one of those facts almost too trivial to find a decent reference for," is acceptable. This assertion requires a source. The only sources you've provided that directly references onkara with onkar is the first one ("The book of enlightened masters: western teachers in eastern traditions" by Andrew Rawlinson: a book that appears to ostensibly be an exegesis on Buddhism and Sufism) and even here he follows with "...is the very first in the list of the names of God given in the Japji," which is an incorrect interpretation of the Japji; and the third one ("Vedic remedies in astrology" by Sanjay Rath). These are not good enough as sources: the article is supposed to contain a Sikh interpretation on references to aum, not Sufic or Vedic ones. Their interpretation may turn out to be correct, but in themselves they are not reputable as sources.

Again, I do not contest that onkara is referenced in the Vedas (you can correct me on this, if I wrong), or its meaning, or that onkar references aum. What I contest is the assertion that onkar is vernacular for onkara. Simply because the the concept of onkara may have influenced Guru Arjan in writing onkar does not mean that onkar is meant to mean onkara. In fact, every semi-reputable source that I know of confirms my own assertion that ek oora (which is the literal translation of the first word of the Mool Mantar) is read as ek onkar and means "creator of aum", as your second reference itself states (Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions, by Wendy Doniger).

Now, you may very well be correct in what you are arguing for, but my preference is to cut all material that cannot be referenced since Sikh traditions are virtually all oral and thus very subjective depending on the biases of the orator (even ones that I myself am sure about, like my own assertions on what ek oora means); so, unless proper sources can be found, I would still contest that removal is the only way to conform to wikipedia's standards.

Krea (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (with some corrections, Krea (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

um, I have just pointed you to a couple of perfectly valid sources. Pick the one you like best and insert it in the article please. The very pedestrian fact that ekonkar represents Sanskrit ekomkāra is now referenced perfectly satisfactorily. Before continuing this discussion, I would like to see some evidence that there is any debate at all on this point in the real world.

also, please read the article. "Onkara" is not "referenced in the Vedas". The term first appears in the Mauryan period or later. Omkara, Omkar, Onkar, Oankar, etc. are just spelling variants. You are basically asking us to prove that "omkar means omkar". this is silly.

but you are correct that Weniger's paragraph goes on to note that "some Sikhs object to any suggestion that Oankar is the same as Om", I had not read that far. This can certainly be duly noted in the article (be my guest), and it certainly would explain all the prancing around happening on this talkpage.

please note that nowhere on this article is it claimed that "Oankar is the same as Om". The article merely notes the fact that Guru Nanak has taken the Sanskrit term and turned it into a unique theological concept of his own, so that "some Sikhs" would really appear to object to a notion that nobody is even proposing in the first place. The difference lies in context, not spelling. It's not that "Omkara" is different from "Oankar", it's that Hindu Omkar is different from Sikh Omkar, for the simple reason that Hinduism and Sikhism are two distinct religions. Because of this, the article has two sections, one labelled "Hinduism", and the other "Sikhism". --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, you cannot just pick any source and claim that it's valid (as far as I know). I come from a scientific background and I know that sources must be evaluated on context and bias. The sources you gave are not good, I'm afraid. This is an encyclopedia, which means that the information has to be credible.

"Before continuing this discussion, I would like to see some evidence that there is any debate at all on this point in the real world." No. I don't have to provide this in order to question the validity of claims made in the article. If I were to change the article to what I think is correct, then I'd have to provide evidence for it, but not when I question factual content.

"...it's that Hindu Omkar is different from Sikh Omkar:" that's precisely my point! I'm merely questioning whether the interpretation that a Hindu would associate with omkar is automatically the same that Sikhism would attach to onkar. Any religion is free to take whatever concept they like and turn it into whatever they like (as the Nazis unfortunately did with the swastika) without retaining the original interpretations.

Put it like this: a Hindu may well see my objection as ridiculous, because from his/her background onkar and onkara (or whatever spelling!) is the same. OK, I don't refute that. Sikhism took the concept of the Hindu onkara/onkara: OK, I'm not going to question that here. Sikhism retained the similarity between onkara and onkar: this I don't believe, and would like to see a source for in the article. Just because in Hinduism the concepts are identical does not logically mean the same in Sikhism. My proof? Well, as I said before, I don't have to provide any evidence in order to question facts, but Sikhism never calls "ek oora" "ek onkara", and "one aum syllable" is never rendered as the translation; so how can it be claimed that onkara and onkar are the same in Sikhism?

I'm not here to start a fight. I have my own views on this, but my primary concern is factual accuracy. Maybe you are correct, and I know that it can be annoying enlightening the less educated, but it is a duty that all knowledgeable people must undertake; so excuse my ignorance, but I still want a proper source! Krea (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC) and Krea (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

you want a proper source for what exactly? You already said that it is "precisely your point" that there is a difference between the Hindu and the Sikh use of the term. Which is what I have said, and what the article says. Are you saying you want a source for what you and I agree upon? Then that source is the Doniger article.

Or is this just about romanization? Onkar and omkāra is the romanization for one and the same string of letters in Indic scripts. As far as I can see, one is the conventional romanization in a Gurmukhi context, and the other is the strict IAST. The difference in Latin spelling is purely an artefact of romanization. While there is only a single IAST spelling (hence "strict"), there isn't even any unity in the transliteration of the Gurmukhi. People variously spell it Omkar, Onkar, Oankar and possibly otherwise. Omkar incidentially would be the conventional romanization of the Hindi. Do we need a source explicitly listing that Omkar, Onkar, Oankar are variants of rendering one and the same string in Gurmukhi? If you can agree that the Sikh term can be romanized as Omkar, and that the Hindi term as Omkar, if you don't mind can we from now on just talk about Omkar for both the Sikh and the Hindu concept so we can get the superficial issues of romanization out of the way? --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not an issue of romanization (I have my own gripes about this!) but of interpretation of the concept of onkar. In fact, in Sikhism the issue is trivial: it is always rendered (as far as I know) as ੴ, which is simply "1o" when transliterated, so in fact neither "onkar" nor "onkara" appear at all. Although maybe we should just call it one thing so as to get this superficiality out of the way; we can call it "omkar" if you like.

Let me explain my point by quoting from the article. Actually, one of my main objections was the first line: "Aum...or auṃkāra (also as Omkāra)...(lit. "auṃ syllable") is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, i.e. Hinduism/Sanātana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism." This has since been changed to remove "Sikhism", so that's negated my objection.

Similarly, the concept of om, called onkar in Punjabi, is found in Sikh theology as a symbol of God. It invariably emphasizes God's singularity, expressed as Ek Onkar ("One Omkara" or "The Aum is One"), stating that the multiplicity of existence symbolized in the aum syllable is really founded in a singular God.

I've highlighted in bold the parts that I think are misleading or wrong. The "concept of om" is too ambiguous. If I were to interpret "om" as symbolic of the ultimacy of God, then that would correspond to omkar as it appears in Sikhism; but if I were to interpret "om" as the triplicity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, then it is not synonymous with omkar. I agree that I'm being a bit pedantic in this, but I think it's important for an encyclopedia to be accurate.

Next, the translation of ੴ (ek oora) is not "one omkara". That's the point I've been trying to make. Sikhism's omkar may trace its lineage to the omkar in Hinduism (I don't know, but I'm not contesting this here), but its Hindu meaning as "om syllable" is not what Sikhism utilizes in its theology. As far as Sikhism is concerned, ੴ only means "omkar" whose meaning is "creator of aum". If it were suggested that Sikhism also understands "omkar" as just being a variant spelling of "omkara", whose meaning is "om syllable", then that needs a source. Similarly, "the aum is one" is also incorrect in my opinion as a translation of ੴ and will need a source if it is to remain.

That's basically my objection. I hope that's clear, but I'll be happy to elaborate further if not. Krea (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeez Krea, where were you when I needed you! good job taking on this hubristic admin who pompously fancies himself an intellectual who thinks he knows better than Sikhs, and any who challenge him have fringe allegiances. He knew finding good written sources from Sikhs for this sort of thing is tough, and in his last post even tried to quote some Hindu layman from some internet forum as citation, and attempted to tie me with fringe elements whose views didn't even remotely match the ones I expressed. He tried to smear and discredit me as being a revisionist when he kept screwing up, trying to learn Punjabi and Gurmukhi on the fly, and I exposed him as clearly not knowing what he was talking about. He got all defensively aggressive and brusque with me rather than admitting his comically numerous screw-ups (he conceded my point to another editor but refused to with me, probably out of injured pride), right from the get-go, presumably because of a perceived slight towards Hinduism. so I just gave up. Even here he seemed to be copping an attitude because you were not content with making (his) assumptions and just going with his version, and using sources written only by non-Sikhs, as well as by a self-admitted "Kesdhari Hindu." You were also more patient than myself in dealing with his arrogance as well, I admit, so good job all around. 3swordz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that! There is so much misinformation and confusion about Sikh theology and no good written sources by actual Sikhs that this whole endeavour can seem completely pointless to me sometimes; so I kind of do this sort of stuff only intermittently. Sikhism badly needs a proper academic -- like Macauliffe -- to produce a definitive text on Sikhism and its scriptures, but who could also stand in defiance to the blind dogmatism of the granthis (E.g. the whole Dasam granth controversy). But, what punjabi is going to learn so many ancient languages and study under so many people in order to do this? Academia is not exactly our strong point! I'm going to go ahead a remove the references to Sikhism that aren't sourced, since this is a fairly trivial matter as far as wikipedia is concerned ("You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references."), and I still have not been given any credible sources. Krea (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Om, not Aum

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request and discussion below. That was very well-argued. - GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Aum → Om —

Om is the common English transcription of ॐ. Not just in English, but across most Western languages. The archive makes it clear that the current page's preference is merely WP:OR, in disregard of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH.

Three possible objections:

• Aum is more specific than Om and therefore makes a better title: The Om usage is so common that Om already directs here instead of to the Om disambig. That should've sent up red flags.
• The Hindu scriptures gloss Om as three sounds: This should be explained in the article, but doesn't change the common English spelling. (Less importantly, but worth mentioning: the ancient Vedic scriptures are authoritative neither for linguistic or modern use and are beside the point.)
• Some people use Aum/Om to distinguish between Hindu and Buddhist concepts: If this can be sourced (it seems specious), include that information in the Buddhist section of this page. However, far and away most people spell both concepts identically, which is why the Buddhist concept is already discussed here despite the presumed "misspelling."

Yes, this will require some minor editing and cleanup, but that should probably await consensus on the move. -LlywelynII (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From archives: (directly; many others in the archive & on this page use "om" despite article's omission of it)

• SUPPORT: Krazy
• SUPPORT: Prime Entelechy
• SUPPORT: 151.199.193.199
• SUPPORT: Wiki Wikardo
• SUPPORT: Thirusivaperur
• SUPPORT: 71.97.134.56
• OPPOSE: LordSuryaofShropshire
• OPPOSE: 128.59.26.54
• OPPOSE: Jyoti
• OPPOSE: Aum best represents the sound, and ūm represents the ॐ character. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support; "om" is clearly the most commonly used transcription in English. Powers ^T 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support obvious case of common english usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

omkar ambavane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarambavane3688 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Buddha didn't teach it"

Sorry about my edit summary, my computer fell mid-typing and submitted only like one word. The intro is not a place to split hairs about the veracity of the teachings of Vajrayana; Om is an important mantra-practice for many Buddhists and glossing over that for theologically-motivated reasons (uncited ones!) is missing the point. Or rather it's POINTing. Ogress _smash! 14:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)